Linderstam v Barnett

In *Linderstam v Barnett*, the plaintiff, Elsie Linderstam, sought to have a deed of settlement cancelled and the funds held by the trustees paid to her. The defendants were the trustees of the deed, Nathaniel Benjamin Barnett and William Alfred Cane, and the plaintiff's children, Mary Gwendolen Johnston, Cyril Dalgleish Johnston, and Bruce Carlysle Johnston, who were beneficiaries under the deed. The deed, executed in 1907, irrevocably settled certain property upon the plaintiff for life, with the remainder to her children upon her death. The plaintiff also covenanted to maintain the property.

The legal issues before the court were whether the deed should be cancelled on the grounds that it was hastily executed, improvident, lacked independent advice for the plaintiff, and did not reflect her true intentions at the time of signing. The plaintiff contended that she had not fully understood the terms of the deed, particularly its irrevocable nature and the burden of maintaining the property, and that she had not received adequate independent advice.

Isaacs J. found that the settlement was not hasty but rather proceeded deliberately and cautiously, with discussions and amendments occurring over many months. The court determined that the deed was not improvident, but rather a wise and motherly act to provide for the children, and that the plaintiff's attempt to undo it was the unwise step. Regarding independent advice, the court held that while its absence is a factor to consider, it does not automatically vitiate a deed. Applying the principle from *Kali Bakhsh Singh v. Ram Gopal Singh*, the court found that even if the plaintiff had received independent advice, the outcome would likely have been the same because the settlement was natural and provident, and the plaintiff was an intelligent woman who understood the transaction. The court concluded that the plaintiff's true intention was to make an irrevocable provision for her children, and that the deed accurately reflected this intention, despite her later claims.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim failed, and the deed was upheld. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay all the defendants' costs, and that any corpus necessarily applied to trustees' costs be recouped from her income. The income payable to the plaintiff was to be impounded until this liability was satisfied.